Transcripts For WETA PBS NewsHour 20101118

swap services and build community. >> lehrer: judy woodruff talks about how to cut the deficit with budget veterans alice rivlin and pete domenici. >> ifill: and jeffrey brown talks to photographer tim hetherington about his new book capturing life on the battlefield in afghanistan. >> i just wanted to show the texture of it. and that meant not just photographing just the combat but as you say the guys you know their time, when war is often very boring. and its boredom punctuated by sheer terror and i wanted to capture all of that. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i do a lot of different exercises, but, basically, i'm a runner. last year, i had a bum knee that needed surgery, but it got complicated because i had an old injury. so, i wanted a doctor who had done this before. and united healthcare's database helped me find a surgeon. you know, you can't have great legs, if you don't have good knees. >> we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. united healthcare. >> opportunity is a powerful force. set it in motion, and it goes out into the world like fuel for the economy. one opportunity leading to another and another. we all have a hand in it, because opportunity can start anywhere and go everywhere. let's keep it moving. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: the people of haiti faced new misery today as violence became an obstacle to the fight against cholera. the trouble came as the epidemic threatened to mushroom out of control. the number of confirmed cholera deaths in haiti climbed above 1,100 today with more than 18,000 cases reported. and as the casualties rise, public frustration is boiling over. riots broke out monday in two northern cities, cap haitian and port de paix. protesters blamed u.n. peacekeepers from nepal for bringing cholera to a country where it did not exist before. >> ( translated ): the reason we are protesting is because the u.n. is doing illegal things in the city. they bring the u.n. to give us security, but this is not security. this is devastation. >> ifill: late on tuesday, haiti's president rene preval urgently appealed for calm. he warned the riots will disrupt efforts to stop the epidemic. the violence did ease somewhat today in cap haitian, but the protests continued. the u.n. has already grounded aid flights into that city. some medical and water chlorination projects have been suspended as well. food aid has also been affected. yesterday, rioters targeted the u.n. world food program's base in port-au-prince. >> they began to attack the w.f.p. warehouses, throwing stones and bottles. and then early, in the hours of early this morning, those attacks went on to actually loot, begin looting food from the warehouses and then also to burn it first thing this morning. we also lost a w.f.p. vehicle and generator in that looting. >> ifill: an investigation is underway to determine the origin of the outbreak. it is known that the strain of cholera bacteria is identical to one found in south asia, where nepal is located. and, it first appeared in haiti shortly after the nepalese soldiers arrived. still, u.n. officials have denounced the allegations. they insist the riots are actually a ploy by opposition political groups to disrupt haiti's elections later this month. i spoke earlier today with jacqueline charles of the "miami herald," who is on the ground in port-au-prince. jacqueline, tell me what you've seen today. >> well, essentially i've been out today, and i was in a community that is outside of the capital, where they are dealing with the cholera epidemic. so as a result of this, you've had stone throwing, as people have gone in to try and remove bodies of individuals who died as a result of this disease. so we're starting to see how communities are starting to react, there's a lot of fear, a lot of apprehension about cholera. people aren't sure, they're afraid they're going to get infected. >> ifill: how did the cholera outbreak lead to rioting, what's the connection? >> they're still trying to determine whether or not there is a connection. i think we have to look at this in two different phases. first and foremost there is a cholera outbreak, people are very upset, people are looking for a place to assess blame in response to the epidemic. at the same time, this is haiti, this is a situation where you've got people that are very frustrated, not just because of the earthquake or even before the earthquake, we're also in a moment of elections. officials within the haitian government have said that they have reasons to believe that the protest that's happening really has little to do with cholera and basically may be individuals who may be spoilers or trying to create some problems before the elections which are on november 28. >> ifill: but has the unrest made it more difficult to take care of people suffering from cholera? has it interfered with efforts to curb the outbreak? >> yes. in the second largest city where we do have some reports of cholera, not as high as other regions, it has created a problem because the bridge is shut down, individuals cannot cross that bridge, they cannot get to hospitals or treatment centers. and that was the concern. we saw yesterday in the president's national address the individuals reminding them that we are in the middle of the epidemic and we're having violent demonstrations, at the end of the day it doesn't serve its purpose, it doesn't help the people and the people that it's hurting are the people who need the help the most. >> ifill: is there any reason that we are seeing this outbreak now, so long after the earthquake when we expected to see this kind of health problem right immediately afterward? >> let's remember that outbreaks happen in an area that was not hit by the earthquake, in areas where you did not have tent cities. so while everybody was focused on the tent cities and believing that we're going to have some sort of epidemic, some sort of outbreak, the reality is it, this did not happen because of the earthquake. the way you look in haiti, the situation they've been in for decades, you look at the unsanitary conditions that exist in this country today, humanitarian health experts are saying they are amazed that we did not have cholera before this. and that basically it was to be expected. when you look at the water, the lack of boatable water, only 40% of patients have access to water and that also means buying water. >> ifill: so what exactly is the government or u. n. officials or anyone else doing to speak to the cause of the problem, to curb this outbreak? >> well, there has been a very aggressive campaign that has been led by the government from day one. they were the first ones to confirm that it was cholera, while the international community was still hesitant to say that it was because at the time they were saying for every 100 people sick, 10 people die. but the government right away said it's cholera, that's what we have that they've led a very aggressive campaign, which is unusual for this government. but they've been on the radio, television, reminding people to wash their hands, telling them to make home made remedies, start drinking the minute they have dee re: aor vomiting. this is a place where dee re: ais very common, but for all intents and purposes, first and foremost think of it as cholera, you have cholera, start drinking this remedy, high dralt yourself get yourself to a clinic. but unfortunately one of the things i'm finding is that there still needs to be more public awareness because there is a fear, there is the, that it's, they're not hearing about messages to help them address their fear, how do you get it, how to avoid it, and if somebody dies in their neighborhood, in their house, that they don't have to abandon that body and there are things they can do to protect themselves. >> ifill: jacqueline charles, reporting from haiti, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> lehrer: still to come on the "newshour": the arms control treaty debate; ways to thrive in the recession; another answer to the deficit problem and images of war. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman in our newsroom. >> holman: republicans and democrats in the house of representatives re-elected their leaders today. on the democratic side, speaker nancy pelosi will be minority leader, come january. she easily turned back a challenge by congressman heath shuler, a moderate from north carolina. pelosi was a target for republican criticism in the mid-term elections, but she said democrats looked beyond her low poll ratings. >> they know that i am the person that can attract the resources both intellectual and otherwise to take us to victory because i have done it before. and so again, you take 9.5% unemployment, you burn a dollar bill, $75 million spent against one person, and i'd like to see what your ratings would be. >> holman: house democrats also kept steny hoyer of maryland in the number two party post. jim clyburn of south carolina kept the number three position, with the new title of assistant leader. on the republican side, john boehner of ohio was re- elected as leader. he'll become speaker in the new congress. alaska senator lisa murkowski was declared the winner today in her re-election bid. she ran as a write-in candidate after losing the republican nomination in a primary. a two-week count of write-in ballots gave her a lead of more than 10,000 votes. murkowski is the first senate candidate to win a write-in campaign in more than 50 years. ireland has agreed to work with european officials on a plan to stabilize its banks. the agreement came amid worries the on-going irish financial crisis could undermine confidence in the euro currency. in addition, britain offered direct assistance of its own. we have more on the story from daisy mcandrew of "independent television news." >> reporter: they had their borrowing bin nl and now ireland is suffering the mother of all financial hangovers. so much so that their banks are teetering on the brink. >> britain's national interest that the irish economy is successful and we have a stable banking system. so britain stand ready to support ireland in the steps that it needs to take to bring about that stability. >> reporter: so as europe puts pressure on the irish to take a bailout, the irish minister was on the radio trying to convince business the country doesn't need one, although the banks might. >> surely, bailing out the banks and bailing out the country is exactly the thing now considering that we own the banks. >> reporter: but what the irish government really doesn't want is a bail out that comes with conditions that would strip it of its powers. >> if some mechanism can be found over the next 24, 48 hours that doesn't trespass on our capacity to make our own decisions, that's fine, i don't have a problem with that. but what we have said and we're continuing to say is that we have made decisions to deal with our national debt. we have made decisions to deal with our public finances and our taxation system. >> reporter: but with the european delegation arriving in dublin to start to pour over the irish book, they may fine resisting a handout is about to get harder. >> holman: the irish bailout aims to prevent a loss of investor confidence that could damage other struggling european countries. on wall street, stocks were mixed after four days of losses. the dow jones industrial average lost 15 points to close near 11,008. the nasdaq rose six points to close at 2,476. airports and train stations in germany went on high alert today after warnings that terror attacks are in the works. hundreds of police officers were deployed in a highly visible show of force. officials said they would stay in place until further notice. the interior minister said there's strong evidence militants may try to attack soon. still, he urged calm. >> ( translated ): ladies and gentlemen, there is reason for worry, but there is no reason for hysteria. we will not allow the international terror to limit us in our way of life and our freedom of culture. >> holman: germany thus far has escaped any major terror attacks, like those in madrid and london in recent years. in the u.s. embassy bombings in africa in 1998. the jury found him not guilty on terrorism charges, but convicted him on a single count of conspiracy. galani was the first guantanamo detainee to face a civilian trial. the embassy attacks killed 222 people, including a dozen americans. the u.s. food and drug administration is warning four makers of alcoholic energy drinks to get the caffeine out. the beverages are especially popular among college students, and contain about 12% alcohol, plus caffeine. the f.d.a. said the result is that people can keep drinking, longer. one company-- phusion projects-- announced yesterday it would remove caffeine and other stimulants from its drinks. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jim. >> lehrer: the debate over the new start nuclear arms treaty with russia. the obama administration today again urged the senate to ratify it before the end of the year. margaret warner has our story. >> warner: the obama administration stepped up the pressure today to approve a new nuclear weapons treaty with russia before this congress expires. secretary of state hillary clinton went to the capitol, to urge the lame-duck senate to vote now. >> for anyone to think that we can postpone it or we can avoid it is, i'm afraid, vastly underestimating the continuing threat that is posed to our country. so we hope our friends in the senate will bring this up, pass this treaty, and then i can inform the russians that it's now their... you know, their turn to do the same. >> warner: clinton was responding to senator jon kyl, the republicans' point man on the issue. he stunned the administration yesterday, saying he did not think the treaty should be brought up in the lame duck session. he cited the press of other business and unresolved issues on the treaty. new start for strategic arms reduction treaty would replace the 1991 start 1 pact that expired last december. under the new accord, the u.s. and russia agreed to cut deployed strategic warheads by 30%, to 1,550 apiece. and cap ballistic missile launchers and bombers at 800 each. the treaty delete easily cleared the senate foreign relations committee in september, with three out of seven republicans voting yes. but it needs 67 votes in the full senate. republicans have a number of complaints, but kyl has focused mainly on the need to upgrade the u.s. nuclear arsenal and labs. this past weekend, the obama administration upped its offer to fund modernization, to $84 billion over 10 years. but today, moderate republican ohio senator george voinovich said voting now would be a rush to judgment. in japan last weekend, president obama told russian president dmitri medvedev that he wanted senate action soon. >> i reiterated my commitment to get the start treaty done during the lame duck session. and i've communicated to congress it is a top priority. >> warner: now it appears the president will go empty-handed when he meets with medvedev again at the nato summit in portugal, this weekend. for more on all this we turn to two men who've negotiated arms deals with the russians. richard burt was the chief u.s. negotiator for the start 1 treaty with the former soviet union in 1991. he's an international consultant, and also chairman of global zero, a group seeking to rid the world of nuclear weapons. jim woolsey was the chief u.s. negotiator during the conventional armed forces in europe treaty signed in 1990. he was director of the c.i.a. during the clinton administration. welcome to you both. rick burt, begining with you, how much of a setback is what senator kyle said yesterday for the prospects of geting this treaty ratified? >> well, i think it's potentially a very serious setback. i think the danger is that the treaty is pushed into the new congress, that it will take potentially several months and maybe longer to be ratified. it could be indefinitely postponed. and i think it becomes then a hostage to events. so i think that the lame duck session is the best opportunity to get this treaty ratified with the least amount of political damage to the u.s.-russia relationship and the credibility of the united states worldwide. >> warner: jim woolsey, what is your view of the impact of what senator kyle did yesterday? >> i see it differently. i think it gives the senate, including the senate that was just elected in january, an opportunity to get into the details of the treaty, to understand the negotiating husband try to see what needs to be done or to make sure that we don't cripple our ability to deploy ballistic missile defenses in order to make sure we get accurate guarantees from the president about modernizing our strategic offensive nuclear forces. and i don't think you can do that in the very few days of hectic activity that is a lame duck session. that's why as far as i'm aware, no defense treaty, no arms control treaty has ever been approved by the senate during a lame duck session. it's a crazy quilt to kind of period in washington, there's no reason it shouldn't be taken up in january, with some careful and thorough work by the senate and the administration. in the the meantime to get some of these guarantee clear. so i see it very differently than rick. >> warner: mr. burt, senator kyle said the same. he particularly pointed to modernization so, there wasn't enough time to resolve the thorny issue there's. first of all, what what's he talking about? and secondly, does he have a point? >> okay. really two or three quick points. first of all, jim suggests in a way that if it went into a lame duck session that the treaty really hasn't been examined carefulfully. and it clearly has. there have been over 20 briefings of the congress, the senate on the treaty. there have been over 900 questions answered. in fact, this treaty has undergone as much examination as the treaty i helped negotiate in 1991. and it's interesting that senator kyle is focusing on nuclear modernization, rather than potential pit falls in the treaty itself. because i think most of the arguments against the treaty are essentially bogus. what senator kyle is focusing on is the question of whether or not we are spending enough on our nuclear weapons complex to keep it safe, reliable, secure and effective. and here i think the administration, and i'm not a spokesman for the administration but i think they have clearly walked the practice mile to deal with senator kyle's concerns, they are talking about spending $80 billion on the infrastructure that actually makes nuclear weapons, not the missiles, bombers or so-called delivery vehicles, but the weapons themselves that ensures that they continue to be reliable and effective. and they're talking about $80 billion over 10 years and adding another $4 billion in the coming year to ensure that the nuclear weapons labs and the country's infrastructure is capable of maintaining our nuclear stockpile. i have to say that again not speaking for the administration, but this is a much larger amount of money than was spent by the previous administration on nuclear weapons complex. >> warner: what about that, jim woolsey, that sounds like a lot of money. >> well, $80 billion is a lot of money, it about what the u.s. sblgs community spends in one year, so you're talking about spreading that over slightly more than 10 years. the problem is that our nuclear laboratory and production and design complexes for nuclear weapons have fallen into disrepair. and need a lot of extra work. that on the offensive side, and the ballistic missile defense work on the defensive side, are extremely important in part because of the inadequacies of the treaty. the treaty, negotiators gave up a good deal in terms of verification, not getting on site inspection of the russian principle ballistic production facility, the way they had under the original start. not getting the ability to inspect nondeclared sites, et cetera. and those inadequacies in verification can really be fixed without going back to square one and renegotiating the treaties. senator kyle hasn't asked for that. what he's asked for is a careful and thorough cooperation between the senate as it will come into office in january, and the administration on our maintaining our offensive forces and our defensive forces. >> warner: let me step back in the remaining time we have, which is if you look at the start i treaty, which you negotiated, mr. burt, a proved i think it was 93-6, and the mass cow treaty that under the bush 43 administration something like 95-0. why has this become so politicized, and so controversial? >> again, i don't think it because of problems with the treaty. jim talks about ballistic missile defense. there are no constraints on this administration or any future administration's options for kofling ballistic missile defense -- developing ballistic missile defense. the language in the treaty is exactly the same as in the language in the treaty i negotiated, and previous administrations negotiated. why is it getting so politicized? first of all, and here i can say this as a republican, this is the first time a democratic administration has sought to get ratification for strategic arms treaty. and i think that is, creates a difficult dilemma for republicans. it's hard for republicans to oppose a republican administration's treaty, particularly in the current hyper partisan and polarized atmosphere in washington. i any it's much easier for republicans to oppose this administration. but in thinking about the problem, ratification or nonratification, we have to look at the consequences of what happens if this treaty goes down. we lose the verification system that is already lapsed under the treaty that i negotiated. we miss the opportunity to improve relations with the russians who have supported us on iran and u. n. sanctions and increasingly in afghanistan. and we become, we lose all credibility on the problem stopping nuclear proliferation. margaret, there are only two governments in the world that would not like to see this treaty ratified. the government in tehran and the government in north korea. >> warner: a brief word from you mr. woolsey, and do address, if would you, the point that rick burt just made about why he thinks this treaty is having a harder time with republicans than former treaties did with democrats. >> well, the whole atmosphere of washington is much more sour now than it has been in some time in the past. but the may to make it sourer is for the administration to try to ram this treaty true in -- through in a lame duck session. rather than working carefulfully with the incoming senate, and to satisfy a, 67 senators that they are doing a good job of looking at the negotiating record of the treaty carefulfully, remembering all of the problems we had with the narrow versus broad interpretation of the treaty and the rest, and getting this set up in such a way that people are confident across the political spectrum that the treaty has not interfered and will not interfere with our ability to deploy ballistic missile defenses and our ability to modernize our sta triage imoffensive forces. they haven't done that yet. once they do that, if they can, and it may take more resources than what they are now talking about, it may take some changes to our ballistic missile defense program, if they satisfy the senate, the incoming senate of that, then they have a reasonable chance of having a bipartisan approach toward this treaty and towards strategic policy in general. if they try to ram this through in the lame duck session, they've got a real fight on their hands. >> warner: all right, gentlemen, thank you, we have to leave it there. jim woolsey, richard burt. >> thank you. >> ifill: next, finding creative ways to stay afloat in tough times. that's the subject of a new pbs documentary called "fixing the future." correspondent david brancaccio traveled coast to coast in search of americans creating new jobs and opportunities in their own communities. in this excerpt, he tells a story of sharing services in a new england town. >> reporter: the last stop on my road trip brings me back home to the place where i grew up-- the state of maine. trust me, it's not all fancy coastline and lobster. but an economic innovation is being tested here portland that i want to know more about. it involves a bank but not the kind with money. it's a time bank known as hour exchange portland, where people swap services and build community. i start by making a deposit, an hour of my own skills as a handyman. >> we're doing some basic weatherization down here. you can see all these cobwebs. cobwebs are a great way to see that there is some major air flow going on down here, because that's how the food comes in down here in the basement. if it's bugs. >> reporter: so if this is well sealed and well insulated, the spiders wouldn't waste their time. >> exactly. >> reporter: so... so we're on this quest to fix the economy of the future. >> fix the economy. >> reporter: not just dig ourselves out of the hole. >> all right. all right. >> reporter: but maybe do better. >> all right. >> reporter: maybe make the economy serve more people. >> all right. >> reporter: you think there are ways we can do better on the economy? >> yeah, certainly. i think one of the problems-- or i guess kind of taking a step back-- one of the problems would be putting people to work. i think that's a big problem with the economy and what's going on. with alternative currency, with time banking, what that is, is that is putting people out, coming out here to do this type of work, help a neighbor, meet. it's a whole networking of it. but it's not using cash. >> reporter: portland hour exchange was started by a real maine doctor, richard rockefeller. he's from that rockefeller family noted for its success in the traditional dollar economy. and yet he believed that fixing his community in portland would make more than dollars. >> in time banking, a member provides a service to another member and it's a lot like volunteering, but in return, they earn one time dollar, which is not a piece of paper. people write it down, but eventually they enter it into a computer program and the time dollar they earn, they can then spend on the service of another member who's in the whole time banking system. >> reporter: and the time dollar is an hour? >> a time dollar is an hour. so an hour earns you a time dollar, no matter what the service, so that right away is a radical departure from the formal economy where different services are worth different things depending on scarcity and supply and demand. in this case, in a community, everybody's time is equal, so economists, for that reason often find this completely foolhardy and incomprehensible and fortunately so does the i.r.s. because that is considered a noncommercial transaction and therefore nontaxable. >> reporter: jennifer lunden is the nice lady with that basement that needed weatherizing. >> this is what i love about the hour exchange. first of all you get to do things that you really love to do. in my case, what i'm doing now a lot more is i'm a therapist, and it's a way that i'm able to offer therapy to people who's insurance has run out or who are uninsured. >> reporter: you bump into a lot of those people? >> well, it seems like it happens... it happens more often than i would like. >> reporter: yeah. >> i have an option they can, they can join the time banks. and earn time credits and pay me with that. and for me that works out great because my doctor takes time credit from me. >> reporter: sweet. >> sweet. >> reporter: that's incredible. >> and he's an exceptionally good doctor. he's the doctor i'd want to see if i had money to pay or if i, if he took my insurance. he's the doctor that i would see. >> reporter: are you connecting with other people, you meeting other people through this? >> this is like the new kind of community. so in this country we've lost a lot of the sense of community and people are so focused on just surviving economically or doing better than their neighbors economically. we're so focused on stuff that we completely lost our sense of community. and hour exchange is a way that i have a built in community. there are about 600 members that i can go to and ask for help. >> reporter: i contributed my hour to the portland exchange. now it's my time to debit my account, as my fixing the future explorations comes to a close. what i get is a sailing lesson from exchange member steve beckett, a physical therapist and a sailor. steve. >> yeah. >> reporter: i've got to say that sharing hours doesn't feel like much of a sacrifice right now. you know i go into a nice person's basement, i squirt in a little bit of expandable insulation. i put up a little weather stripping and then i get to come out on the water with you. >> reporter: in a sense it's an example that with more community doesn't mean material sacrifices necessarily. >> one of the principles of service exchange is that everyone, everyone has things they can share. i think that we have been exchanging skills as long as we've been aware that we were even on the planet. >> reporter: can you make it bigger? can you make it wider to the point that maybe you can start to change the economy. >> we just have this arbitrary economic system that we all have, you know, grown up in and believe in and contribute to and work in. if it's not working anymore, then let's do something different. i think the seeds already are planted and sprouted and well on their way. go, make it fast. give it a pull on there. >> reporter: like that. >> people are in distress all over for many, many reasons on many different fronts. people are wondering, how are we... how are we going to get by? how are we going to live? how are we going to get by when we're 80? you know, what are we going to do for healthcare? what are we going to do for transportation? how are we going to stay warm in the winter? how are we going to meet all, all of the basic human needs that we all have. >> reporter: you would argue that some of the answer to that is in community. >> sure. it always has been. it always has been. community is more like something that we're remembering than something that we're creating all over again. let's turn and go back into the wind. >> reporter: let's do that. >> ifill: "fixing the future" airs on many pbs stations this week. >> lehrer: now, the continuing debate over deficits and the debt. judy woodruff backgrounds the story and then hears from two more leading voices. >> woodruff: for the second time in as many weeks, a pair of leading budget watchdogs warned the u.s. is heading down a death spiral if drastic changes are not made to the country's finances. today, the recommendations came from the bipartisan policy center and were led by two people with vast budget experience. former senator pete domenici, a republican and alice rivlin, a democrat who once served as white house budget director and head of the congressional budget office. their recommendations called for a mix of changes in taxes and spending over the next several years, including: a social security payroll tax holiday next year; cutting and simplifying individual and corporate tax rates; creating a new 6.5% national sales tax and big cuts in spending, including a four-year freeze on domestic programs, a five-year freeze on defense. last week, the co-chairs of a presidential commission put out their blueprint. last night, former senator alan and simpson and former white house chief of staff erskine bowles discussed the magnitude of the problem with pbs' charlie rose. >> you know, we've fought two wars, we've put a new prescription drug benefit in, so we've got a lot of things that have created this, plus we had this horrendous economic you know recession, and we've had to spend some money to get out of there. so it's easy to see how we got here. what we got to talk about is how can we end it? how can we get out of it? >> and if you tell people, every dollar that's spent by this country, we're borrowing plus 41 cents, i think it's 39 now, but whatever, i mean, that's something any american can understand, they understand that at the barstool in buffalo, wyoming. you cannot-- every buck we spend, we're borrowing 40 cents. this is madness. >> we can't tax our way out of it. people who want to do just taxes, you'd have to raise the maximum marginal rates to 80%. you'd have to raise the corporate rate to 70%. you'd have to raise the capital gains rate to 50% if you're just going to do taxes. we can't cut our way out of it. people say, oh, well, let's just cut the budget. if you just rely on deficit reduction through cutting, and you want to exclude social security, medicare and defense and of course interest, then you'd have to cut everything else by about 60% to 65%. >> woodruff: but some of the proposals have met with fierce resistance on capitol hill. for his part, president obama has said tough decisions will have to be made. and for more about their proposal and other ideas being discussed, we are joined now by former budget director alice rivlin and former senator pete domenici. good to have you both with us, thanks very much. >> good to be here. >> woodruff: with all due respect, you've done a lot of work here over the last year. but why not leave this up to the presidentially appointed commission, alice rivlin, you're a member of that commission, it's already created waves, it's dramatic, why not leave it up to them? >> well, we're not taking over for them. we're just offering our ideas. we got a group together, this started before there was a presidential commission, that the senator and i agreed to co-chair this group. we got 19 people from across the country, former governors and senators and mayors and some budget experts. and created this plan. so we think it's a very good answer, not only to how do we get out of the recession, but how do we solve this big debt problem. and we're offering it in the hopes that it will be taken seriously. >> you've got to understand that the president's commission doesn't have a plan. we have a plan. ours is completed. there's consensus, everybody on it was it's a plan, i sign on -- >> of your task force? >> yes. and so we started it. and we have to finish it. and it's terrific. it's the best plan ever seen. and i'm hopeful that erskine bomes and simpson do something. but as of now they have a series of ideas, many of which are the same as ours or similar. and we have an obligation now to get ours out there and frankly i'm going to repeat myself, but to vote, get the recession out from under us and get ourselves moving again with a growth oriented country that has a future. our plan is just a terrific plan. >> woodruff: let's talk about some of the specifics. one way your plan, alice rivlin, would differ from this simpso simpson-bowles plan is that you would suspend the social security payroll taxes for a year, that's good for people in that they wouldn't have to add to the taxes, but it would add to the deficit. so my question is, one of your principal goals is to cut the deficit, but you're useding to the sef it. >> yes, we think that the country is facing two big problems. one is we have to e out of this recession. we've turned the corner but the economy is not growing fast enough and unemployment has to come down faster. so we think that the payroll tax holiday, which would put money in the pockets of all working people and also help employers, is a good thing, but it's a temporary thing. yes, it would add to the deficit. but at the same time, simultaneously, we believe that the congress should adopt a broad range of deficit reduction measures. and that that itself will help us get out of the recovery. >> we've got to make a point for your viewers. we can afford a one-year holiday. because at the end of our work when you cut everything we can, when we reformed taxes we put on a two-year, it implemented in two years, sales tax, on consumption, that will pay for the cost of the one-year holiday. so we don't add to the deficit. >> woodruff: so you do, you would impose a 6.5% national sales tax, and you would lower, you would simple pie the tax code, lower income tax, corporate tax rates. as you know, there are progressives out there today who are saying what you're doing is a big hit on the back of working people. >> not so. she can tell you, but it's quite the opposite. our plan in out totality is more progressive tonight current income tax system of our country by far. because we have the reform in the tax code, plus we kept two very major programs for child care and the low income workers. they've been improved and they get very good benefits. when you put those in the mix it's more progressive than what we've got today. >> woodruff: you've also made some dramatic cuts in spending, in both domestic and freezes in both domestic and defense spending across the board. why is it across the board, alice rivlin, better than looking at program by program? >> oh, we don't intend this to be across the board cut. we expect -- on everything. what a freeze means is that the total is frozen. the defense department, for example, would have to figure out how to live within a fixed total. now that means that they could phase out or eliminate some programs that are no longer necessary, or are low priority, as secretary gates has already started doing. but emphasize the things that are high priority and are needed similarly, on the domestic side. we wouldn't want to cut across the board in week al percentage, that would be -- in equal percentage, that would be crazy. >> your listeners have to know that on the domestic side there are literally thousands of programs. we would not, it would not be right for us to go through and talk about each one. we just said the pot won't grow for four years, and it's capped, you're going to have to go within that domestic program and decide which ones you want and which ones you don't. >> woodruff: but the problem with cutting is that everybody wants to reduce the deficit, but when it gets to specifics that's when you run into problems. how do you plan to sell this on the hill or to the american people for whom many of these programs are popular? >> well, i'll take it first. i believe a reduction in domestic appropriated accounts, which we're talking about now, the money for the capital, the pot for defense with a cap on it that's much easier to sell than most of this budget. the parts that are hard to sell are the fact that we must have a new source of revenue after we're finished with all the cuts. we can't cut enough to get ourselves where we want to be in terms of the debt, so we s have to put a new tax on, that's the part that people will get angry on. but we have the make them understand that we have a seal be killer out there and we've got to fix it, and fixing it means you might have to have some new revenue. >> woodruff: and that will run into its own buzz saw? >> yes. anything you do that fixses a big looming debt problem where the debt, if we do nothing it's escalating rapidly, anything we do is going to be unpopular. whether it's the spending side or on the revenue side. so, yes, some of the things that we suggest by themselves would be very unpopular. but the point of this is do it altogether and we will avoid the crisis that we think will dry the -- destroy the u.s. economy. >> woodruff: you both know this town very well. how realistic is it to believe that a significant piece of what you're proposing will be enacted? >> you remember the 90s? we got a surplus, we both worked on that. and we got the budget from considerable deficit into surplus. and the way it was done was some tax increase, and holding down spending. the caps on spending are the same idea that we had back in the 90s, and it worked. it worked. yes, it worked. >> i want to say this one thing about that, as far as i'm concerned, tell me what i'm talking about -- >> woodruff: about whether you believe this will actually be solved. >> we were able to do bipartisan work and get some big problems solved. this problem is many, many more times difficult for america. we're going to be ruined as a nation and become a second rate country if this debt is allowed to continue like it is. so we have a bigger, more just reason to convince people. we convinced them then to work together, we ought to be able to now. it won't be easy, but i believe leadership, including leadership from the president, is going to make this a war, a war on this debt, and if we do that we might win. >> woodruff: on that sobering note, pete domenici, alice rivlin, thank you both. >> thank you, judy. >> ifill: finally tonight, capturing war through the camera lens. jeffrey brown has our conversation. >> reporter: american soldiers serving in afghanistan. in battle, relaxing together, asleep. these and many other photographs were taken in the valley in the northeastern afghanistan, in 2007 and 2008. they're part of a new book titled in"infidel". by pete hetherington. the video he shot for this project became the prize winning documentary. welcome. first set the scene of how long were new the valley there, how did it work in terms of daily life and interacting with the soldiers? >> we were with a battle company of the 173rd airborne in the northeast of afghanistan. first the pakistan border. the coming oh was a small six-mile long valley and we went there and were on the side of a mountain. at that time we went and the war was focused on iraq, but afghanistan was the war was getting out of control. it was a really active place to be. >> brown: you say in this book that rather than attempt to describe the war in afghanistan, i have sought to convey some of the contradictions of war what do you mean by that, what does war mean to you? >> well, war is, it's a very slippery thing to try and get out any truth about war. tim o'brien, the writer said the same thing. you know, war is hell. but it's more than that. rather than kind of lay down any kind of definitiveness, i just wanted to show the texture of it, and that meant not just photographing the combat, but their time off when war is often very boring, boredom punctuated by sheer terror, and i wanted to capture all that. >> brown: we'll start with the combat. when you're out there with the men and a battle start what are you trying to capture? >> well, i'm a documentary photographer and filmmaker and i've been doing this for many years, and it was my first time to be in a combat scenario with i was in afghanistan with these men. i'm there as a witness. and i'm just trying to record what i can in the very kind of frenetic environment. i try and obviously, you know, keep myself out of the way and out of danger, but obviously you're in the situation. and the men kind of really accepted our presence. we became for all intents and purposes part of the platoon, although i never carried a weapon, i never pulled guard duty, thool i they they wish i did. and they realized we were going to go to the furthest extent they would go to, we were on in every combat situation, and that that made a bond with me and i was able to document their lives. >> brown: so you've got ta make a decision at different times what you want to do. >> that's true, and there is something special about still photographs, something that we can creatively engage with, and at the same time in filming i had to capture those moments. >> brown: there are many down times, right, when in a sense nothing is happening. >> right. >> brown: and you have to capture the nothingness, but that's, because that's part of what is going on. >> i was interested in some of the photographs of the soldiers sleeping, the classic time of nothing going on, yet in those pictures of those men sleeping, when we think of the imagery of the war we load that with a kind of meaning that here are these very young men, looking very vulnerable, which they are, and yet they are caught up in the maelstrom of war. and we're sending out these men to very difficult circumstances. and i just wanted to represent their life as fully as possible. >> brown: you mentioned the word vulnerable, because that's what comes through. did you think about their vulnerability and then looked at somebody asleep and say there it is? how did those photographs come about? >> we were coming and going over the course of the entire deployment. and i remember making a picture of one of them sleeping and when i looked at it i realized there was something really in that picture, a powerful picture that may me think about war and vulnerability and the young men that ke ask to serve for our country and what it means so, i continued making the series. >> brown: and of course there is the camaraderie, the brotherhood which you to some extent became part of, right? >> yes. >> brown: and you tried to capture that. how much did you feel a part of that and how much could you sort of capture it as a participant or as a sort of person standing off to the side with the camera? >> well, it's interesting. when we first arrived, obviously the men were very suspicious of us. there is a frosty relationship between the press and the military are, which is not necessarily a bad thing. we were viewed with a healthy dose of suspicion. after a while they started to warm up to us and we became part of the platoon. i think they really trusted us to show their world as fully possible. and that also didn't mean shying a way from things, that meant showing both the down time but also the heat of battle, alsoso the documenting when their friends got killed or somebody got killed. it's a view of the war, and i felt it's important because often the representations of soldiers are claimed by the far left or far right to mean a certain thing. and we do these young men an injustice in not digesting fully their reality. and that's what i wanted to show. >> brown: you also have, speaking of that section at the back, where they, i guess their short essays or remarks in their own personal words, right, why did you do tharz i've always wanted to give a voice to my subjects, that's important to me. i think that it's an opportunity to get them to say what they think, and give them that chance. and the essays in the back are remarkable, there's so many really interesting and different things i'd never heard before, that i just had to get the comment in. >> brown: the book is called "infidel." tim hetherington, thank you for talking to us. >> thank you. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: violence in haiti disrupted efforts to fight the growing cholera epidemic. and house democrats re-elected and to kwame holman, in our newsroom, for what's on the "newshour" online. kwame? >> holman: you've seen our new science unit on air. now you can visit them online anytime at our new science page. you'll find all of our reports from miles o'brien, plus additional blog posts, insights and video interviews from both miles and hari sreenivasan. each week, we'll turn to an expert to answer one of your science questions, in a feature we call "just ask." plus, find classroom resources and suggested science reading and this week, an inside look all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on thursday, we'll look at general motors initial public stock offering-- one of the largest ever. i'm gwen ifill. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> this is the engine that connects abundant grain from the american heartland to haran's best selling whole wheat, while keeping 60 billion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> well, the best companies are driven by new ideas. >> our history depends on new ideas. we spend billions on advanced technologies. >> it's all about investing in the future. >> we can find new energy-- more cleaner, safer and smarter. >> collaborating with the best in the field. >> chevron works with the smartest people at leading universities and tech companies. >> and yet, it's really basic. >> it's paying off everyday. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

Related Keywords

Haiti , Japan , North Carolina , United States , Germany , Afghanistan , Iran , Alaska , Madrid , Spain , Portugal , Dublin , Ireland , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Pakistan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Maine , Iraq , South Carolina , Wyoming , Nepal , Tehran , North Korea , Maryland , Ohio , Capitol Hill , Americans , Nepalese , America , Russian , Britain , Soviet , Russians , Irish , American , Haitian , Heath Shuler , Alice Rivlin , Margaret Warner , Pete Hetherington , Pete Domenici Alice Rivlin , Jim Woolsey , Richard Burt , Nancy Pelosi , Jacqueline Charles , Macneil Lehrer , Jim Clyburn , Miami Herald Lehrer , John Boehner , Gwen Ifill , George Voinovich , Jim Woolsey Richard Burt , Daisy Mcandrew , Hari Sreenivasan , Rick Burt , Jeffrey Brown , Jon Kyl , Simpson Bowles , Erskine Bowles , Jim Lehrer , Alfred P Sloan , Tim Hetherington , Pete Domenici , Richard Rockefeller , Rene Preval , Judy Woodruff , Kwame Holman , Steve Beckett , Lisa Murkowski , Hillary Clinton , Steny Hoyer , Dmitri Medvedev ,